Sorry my fellow conservatives, I side with the SCOTUS' decision.

[Procrustes Stretched]

NO! That's not correct.

Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.

He agreed with the oral arguments of the DOJ who, being very concerned that the Commerce Clause argument would be declared unconstitutional, emphatically stated to the court that the "mandate penalty" was a tax and therefore constitutional.

Nowhere in the bill itself was this mandate called anything but a penalty. The DOJ defined it as a tax.

The Government asked the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Sorry...

I will not understand how it was presented and argued by the administration as one thing.
Then the Supreme Court responds and votes 4 for and 4 against.
Then One Judge says it's unconstitutional as is but I tell you what.

Let me tweak this and do you guys a favor and look at this as a tax which you Obama said it was not....And I Roberts will slide this through for you buddy....

One person took it upon himself to fix this thing so he could get it through....

If you wanted this you didn't give a crap how it was handled in Congress.
If you wanted this you certainly don't give a crap how one person went about getting it done.

But you should be able to use a few brain cells and try to understand why some of us don't
like the way government is run under this administration....

 

[PredFan]

well, I guess if you agree with judges re writing legislation to fit their ruling we'll go with that. shades of Kagen.

Are you saying that the judges re-wrote the bill? Can you show me proof of that?

The proof is in the pudding asswipe. The argument before the court was whether or not the law was constitutional under the commerce clause. He re-defined it as being constitutional under the TAX levying powers of the assine democrat idiots of the congress. so bend over

You are dismissed.

 

[WillowTree]

WE as a country did. I think you know that.

(I voted for McCain)

NO! You as half a country did. the rest of us DID NOT

I won't argue this idiotic point with you. Have fun with it by yourself.

so you deny that half the country didn't vote for the asswipe?

 

[PredFan]

Roberts is correct about one thing...it is not the SCOTUS responsibility to protect voters from the results of constitutional legislation passed by elected idiots.

We've got idiots in control of the White House and Congress. That is the fault of the voting public.

Things will change in November. We'll have another group of idiots in control.

The fault lies clearly with the voters, the SCOTUS was merely doing it's job.

 

[konradv]

Roberts is correct about one thing...it is not the SCOTUS responsibility to protect voters from the results of electing idiots.

We've got idiots in control of the White House and Congress. That is the fault of the voting public.

Things will change in November. We'll have another group of idiots in control.

no he's wrong, he's the result of us electing an idiot.

Blaming BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH..., again!!!

 

[WillowTree]

Are you saying that the judges re-wrote the bill? Can you show me proof of that?

The proof is in the pudding asswipe. The argument before the court was whether or not the law was constitutional under the commerce clause. He re-defined it as being constitutional under the TAX levying powers of the assine democrat idiots of the congress. so bend over

You are dismissed.

you wish, and don't call yourself a fellow conservative either, no one is buying that bullshit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The administration and the democrats denied it was a tax. They denied it vehemently. They said in no uncertain terms it was not a tax. The statute does not call it a tax.
Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.
That is no way to run a court.

Obama's Solicitor General and others insisted they get to argue it as a tax. So bwahahaha!


How they argued it is a matter of legal strategy. No one lied.

So let's get this right, it's argued as a tax the supreme court ruled it was a tax, but it's not a tax? Are you insane,,,, never mine don't answer that You are insane.

The Government asked the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

 

[PredFan]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Sorry...

I will not understand how it was presented and argued by the administration as one thing.
Then the Supreme Court responds and votes 4 for and 4 against.
Then One Judge says it's unconstitutional as is but I tell you what.

Let me tweak this and do you guys a favor and look at this as a tax which you Obama said it was not....And I Roberts will slide this through for you buddy....

One person took it upon himself to fix this thing so he could get it through....

If you wanted this you didn't give a crap how it was handled in Congress.
If you wanted this you certainly don't give a crap how one person went about getting it done.

But you should be able to use a few brain cells and try to understand why some of us don't
like the way government is run under this administration....

I don't like it, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[Amelia]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It it was a tax, then the court should have rejected the case and said come back when the tax goes into effect, right?

nope.


next

Please clarify.

Wasn't the first stage of argument before the court about whether or not it was a tax? And wasn't the reason for that because if it was a tax then the later stages of the argument would be moot at that time?

Will someone who knows which law/rule/precedent I'm referring to please post it? I have to go offline for a bit so I can't look it up.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yeah, lockstep with them or they'll run you over. Fucking lemmings.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Obama's Solicitor General and others insisted they get to argue it as a tax. So bwahahaha!


How they argued it is a matter of legal strategy. No one lied.

So let's get this right, it's argued as a tax the supreme court ruled it was a tax, but it's not a tax? Are you insane,,,, never mine don't answer that You are insane.

The Government asked the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

You don't have to post a link to prove me right obamacare became obamatax.

 

[R.D.]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

I can see your point and do think his call is defendable. The administration argued it was a tax to the court. There is bigger picture here. I do wish he voted it down though,

John Roberts's art of war

Had Mr Roberts sided wholly with his conservative brethren on the court, the decision would have been absolutely devastating to liberal ambitions. Obamacare and the*longstanding*liberal interpretation of the commerce clause would have been left in shambles.*Why didn't Mr Roberts pull the trigger? Because he's conservative. And he's very smart. CLICK[Democracy in America archive | June 2012 | The Economist

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Sorry...

I will not understand how it was presented and argued by the administration as one thing.
Then the Supreme Court responds and votes 4 for and 4 against.
Then One Judge says it's unconstitutional as is but I tell you what.

Let me tweak this and do you guys a favor and look at this as a tax which you Obama said it was not....And I Roberts will slide this through for you buddy....

One person took it upon himself to fix this thing so he could get it through....

If you wanted this you didn't give a crap how it was handled in Congress.
If you wanted this you certainly don't give a crap how one person went about getting it done.

But you should be able to use a few brain cells and try to understand why some of us don't
like the way government is run under this administration....

I don't like it, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

it doesn't make you conservative either.

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

I can see your point and do think his call is defendable. The administration argued it was a tax to the court. There is bigger picture here. I do wish he voted it down though,

John Roberts's art of war

Had Mr Roberts sided wholly with his conservative brethren on the court, the decision would have been absolutely devastating to liberal ambitions. Obamacare and the*longstanding*liberal interpretation of the commerce clause would have been left in shambles.*Why didn't Mr Roberts pull the trigger? Because he's conservative. And he's very smart. CLICK[Democracy in America archive | June 2012 | The Economist

what roberts effectively said is the congress has the power to make you buy ANYTHING just as long as they call it a tax.

 

[Clementine]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It it was a tax, then the court should have rejected the case and said come back when the tax goes into effect, right?

Ask the judges. I'm just saying that upholding it was the correct interpretation of the Constitution, and that the damage was done 3 1/2 years ago. The blame for this terrible bill lies with the voters and not the SCOTUS.

The only way to fix it is to vote him out. I think this will hurt his chances a lot because many people are unhappy about this oppressive legislation. Legal or not, it's bad for the country.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It's constitutional to tax people for not purchasing something?

How is taxing someone for not purchasing something any different than fining/imposing a penalty on someone for not purchasing something?

While it reigned in gov'ts over reach via the commerce clause it expanded gov't reach via taxation. The gov't will be able to 'tax' you for not purchasing something they (the gov't) deems is 'for your own good and the good of all'.

And you're ok with this?

 

[PredFan]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It it was a tax, then the court should have rejected the case and said come back when the tax goes into effect, right?

You are both right. I'm on the fence but leaning that the right thing was done. I get the activist argument but I also understand that the lawyers for the feds did argue that it was a tax.

I'm not a lawyer so ultimately I end up confused on the outcome. Since I do not understand the validity of the decision I won't take sides but rather focus on ousting the liberals in DC so this can be repealed.

Neither am I a lawyer, I have this handicap that prevents me from becoming one. It's called a conscience.

However, I have spent a few days reading, listening, and understanding the ruling as Roberts stated it and I see, though I hate it, how it was allowed to stand.

 

[Zoom-boing]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

I can see your point and do think his call is defendable. The administration argued it was a tax to the court. There is bigger picture here. I do wish he voted it down though,

John Roberts's art of war

Had Mr Roberts sided wholly with his conservative brethren on the court, the decision would have been absolutely devastating to liberal ambitions. Obamacare and the*longstanding*liberal interpretation of the commerce clause would have been left in shambles.*Why didn't Mr Roberts pull the trigger? Because he's conservative. And he's very smart. CLICK[Democracy in America archive | June 2012 | The Economist

what roberts effectively said is the congress has the power to make you buy ANYTHING just as long as they call it a tax.

Winner, winner chicken dinner.

 

[PredFan]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

I can see your point and do think his call is defendable. The administration argued it was a tax to the court. There is bigger picture here. I do wish he voted it down though,

John Roberts's art of war

Had Mr Roberts sided wholly with his conservative brethren on the court, the decision would have been absolutely devastating to liberal ambitions. Obamacare and the*longstanding*liberal interpretation of the commerce clause would have been left in shambles.*Why didn't Mr Roberts pull the trigger? Because he's conservative. And he's very smart. CLICK[Democracy in America archive | June 2012 | The Economist

I wish he'd voted it down as well.